Sydnor v. Arnold

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that dismissal of § 1681b claim is not warranted just because the pleadings show defendant is a debt collector and distinguishing cases granting dismissal where plaintiffs conceded in their complaints that they owed debts
• construing complaint under Section 168 1(f) intended to do so. For these reasons, the Court has not Section 1681-2(b
• noting that, while courts frequently take notice of a party’s website, they do so “for the fact of the website’s albeit formalistic, is “an element of a claim under the ADEA.” See Downey v. Adloox Inc., 238 F. Supp. 3d 514, 524 (S.D.N.Y. 2017
• construing complaint under Section 1681(f) not Section 1681-2(b) as “a context in which [his claims] make much more sense, and a context in which Plaintiff may have intended to assert them”
• denying motion to dismiss on grounds of permissible purpose where “nothing in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint or the exhibits attached thereto suggests the existence of such a debt or its assignment to Defendant”
• discussing propriety of taking judicial notice of contents of party's website

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).